Once again, I find it ironic to be holding an absolutist free speech view on a website that automatically deletes opinions the community doesn't like.
Free speech has nothing to do with the right to be listened to.
Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
621–630 of 776 posts
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#622I imagine the people who are happy about this event aren't very fun at parties.
I imagine people who say others aren’t fun at parties, are themselves not very fun at parties.
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#623Nobody is talking that it's not just the account that got banned but even sharing the content is not possible anymore. How is that not censorship?
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#624Earlier quoted context omitted.
Deplatforming works to achieve what exactly?
Stemming the spread of hatred and violence.
Except the videos of Watson aren't spreading hate or violence but he is just another person with an opinion. Because it's unpopular opinion and because he worked with Infowars in the past it's easy to make him into the "bad guy".
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#625Funny how most of you doesn't seem to understand that it's not the banned people who are dangerous. It's Facebook. Stay off the platform and encourage others to do the same. Read news from respected news outlets and remember that there are always multiple sides to a story.
Why not both? They're dangerous in different ways, but just because Facebook has its set of issues doesn't mean those people should have a platform to spread their non-sense to the masses.
I suppose we can assume you don't class yourself as one of the masses, those poor benighted souls who have to be protected from 'non-sense' as defined by you?
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#626There are people that believe this isn't censorship?
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#627Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain to me how Milo is dangerous? I can see the case for Alex Jones, who spreads the kind of misinformation that leads certain individuals to "take action". But Milo? He's basically a clown.
At the surface he mind seem harmless, but he uses very similar tactics to Alex Jones behind the scenes. He will often make insane statements, and once he's called out on it, he pulls the "I was obviously joking, were you stupid enough to think I actually meant that" card. The issue is that his followers most definitely take him seriously, and that's exactly how he's dangerous.
How about giving chapter and verse when you want to criticise people instead of making these woolly assertions as in 'he will make insane statements'? Example? I'm neither arguing for or againt Milo, merely irritated by this cheap rhetorical trick of making ex-cathedra announcements as if everyone agrees they're truisms. They are not, at least not in a group of folk with diverse opinions.
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#628Every time this subject comes up, someone inevitably says something like "Facebook is a private corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government, and if you want to use Facebook you have to play by their rules. No one is owed a platform." Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies. They are the only services in their class to take seriously if you're looking to gain a follow…
> Every time this subject comes up, someone inevitably says something like "Facebook is a private corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government..." ... Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies.
For this reason, I see Facebook's blocking of specific voices as a potentially positive trend. There used to be a credible hypothesis that social media platforms could be neutral, many hoped this would be the case. However, it's now becoming clear that the hypothesis is wrong.
Social media platforms are not neutral, nor should they be. If Fox News can cater to pro-Trump voices, and NY Times can cater to pro-democrat voices, Facebook and other social media companies should also be allowed to regulate the content on their platform.
The fact that Facebook is now taking an editorial stand, and rejects the premise of being the platform for everyone, will allow other companies to fill the remaining space. I look forward to the day when Facebook chooses to focus on sharing family photos and inconsequential personal minutiae, and delegates all politics and news to other services.
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#629Nobody is talking that it's not just the account that got banned but even sharing the content is not possible anymore. How is that not censorship?
Banning hate speech is not censorship. You can't know what's hate speech tho, only comrade Andropov can know that.
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#630Facebook is not a public square. I love public spaces. Shouldn’t we pay for one? I don’t care if Facebook has a darling reputation; ought it run our public and private meeting spaces?
There are many public spaces outside of Facebook, and they’re paid for with taxes.
Yes and what about digital meeting spaces; public-funded IRC?